|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: Florida Supreme Court upholds ban on openly carrying guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Florida Supreme Court found the state’s ban on openly carrying handguns constitutional, raising the stakes for open carry laws under consideration in the Legislature this year.
In its 4-2 decision, the Florida Supreme Court agreed with an appeals court ruling that found Florida’s gun laws do not violate the constitution because a person’s right to self-defense is not infringed by restricting firearms to being hidden away.
The case began in 2012 when Fort Pierce resident Dale Lee Norman received his concealed carry license and, the same day, openly carried his firearm in a holster as he walked down the street. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/3/2017)
|
This decision stands on shaky ground, because while the SCOTUS has recognized the power of states to regulate concealed carry with permits (technically defining concealed carry as a privilege), the fact is that bearing arms is a fundamental RIGHT, not a privilege, and the government cannot exact requirements to exercise fundamental rights (see: poll taxes and literacy tests for voting). Since obtaining a concealed carry permit, de facto, requires government permission, it cannot satisfy the free exercise of the RIGHT.
Depending on the makeup of the SCOTUS when this realization finally reaches the Court, one would reasonably expect this particular jurisprudence to be reversed. |
|
|
